139
139
Dec 10, 2012
12/12
by
CURRENT
tv
eye 139
favorite 0
quote 0
or would, if the supreme court rules against doma. >> if the supreme court rules against doma, nothing changes. >> if they rule for california? >> uh-huh. >> how about all of those other state constitdeletions? automatically invalid dated. >> the 9th circuit, when they decided the case they ruled very narrowly. they said because california had the right, california same-sex couples had the right to marry. then it was taken away from them, that this was similar to the 1996 supreme court case when the colorado voters had amended their constitution and it was a case rommer versus evans in which the voters had taken away ability for any city in colorado to have a non-discrimination policy based upon sexual orientation. the court there had said you can't take away people's rights to enter the system. >> bill: the court could say it's up to the states? >> the court could say you can't take away rights. >> bill: uh-huh. >> you have already granted. that would only impact the state of california. but they could also say that the 14th amendment to the constitution guarantees fundamental rights
or would, if the supreme court rules against doma. >> if the supreme court rules against doma, nothing changes. >> if they rule for california? >> uh-huh. >> how about all of those other state constitdeletions? automatically invalid dated. >> the 9th circuit, when they decided the case they ruled very narrowly. they said because california had the right, california same-sex couples had the right to marry. then it was taken away from them, that this was similar to...
208
208
Dec 8, 2012
12/12
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 208
favorite 0
quote 0
ruling in favor of the arc of history and civil rights, given the fact that they're taking up both doma and prop 8. i wonder where you think roberts fits into all this. >> based on some of the other decisions he has made, i don't think he is quite as conservative as some people think. i think taking up the doma case is really important because we really need to have the defense of marriage act struck down. marriage in the states is great. but at the end of the day, there is an awful lot of benefits that come from the federal tax code, that people who get married need to enjoy if you're going to have a fair and equitable situation in society. so i think they made a big step forward here. and, you know, the court is a hard place to read. unfortunately, it's not like the election. well don't have nate silver to read every morning to tell us how it's going to turn out. but we'll all be watching closely. >> chris, there is a third issue that the justices haven't taken up yet, and that's an arizona law that bars some same-sex spouses from access to state benefits. where do we go on that? what
ruling in favor of the arc of history and civil rights, given the fact that they're taking up both doma and prop 8. i wonder where you think roberts fits into all this. >> based on some of the other decisions he has made, i don't think he is quite as conservative as some people think. i think taking up the doma case is really important because we really need to have the defense of marriage act struck down. marriage in the states is great. but at the end of the day, there is an awful lot...
71
71
Dec 10, 2012
12/12
by
MSNBC
tv
eye 71
favorite 0
quote 0
the doma case has a very straight forward question. is it constitutional for a federal law to say that the government will not recognize marriages even when they're legal in the states, so that if married couples get married in the nine states where it's now legal, the federal government doesn't recognize those marriages. there's a question about whether that's unconstitutional discrimination, but if the supreme court does strike down doma, it doesn't say anything about whether the states must permit same-sex marriage, it only says if they do, the federal government must recognize them. so it's the proposition 8 case from california that potentially raises the bigger question. now, as it comes to the supreme court, it comes in a very narrow way. the court of appeals, which agreed with the trial court, that proposition 8 striking down gay marriage in california was unconstitutional, it ruled in a very narrow way. it said california was wrong to grant the right and then take it away. you can't do that, apeeldz court said. if the supreme
the doma case has a very straight forward question. is it constitutional for a federal law to say that the government will not recognize marriages even when they're legal in the states, so that if married couples get married in the nine states where it's now legal, the federal government doesn't recognize those marriages. there's a question about whether that's unconstitutional discrimination, but if the supreme court does strike down doma, it doesn't say anything about whether the states must...
160
160
Dec 8, 2012
12/12
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 160
favorite 0
quote 0
so with a doma case, it's like justice kennedy's most favorite things. because justice kennedy loves state power. >> loves state's rights. ? and he loves gay rights because of the 1996 case and the 2003 case, both of which he authored the opinion that upheld the rightings of lgbtv individuals. the doe ma case is like the perfect convergence of those two strands so, that's why i'm so confident about the doma case because it's a state's rights case in the sense that the federal government is meddling with the state definitions of marriage. with respect to the prop 8 case, i think again kennedy, because of these two cases i mentioned, is likely to be sympathetic but may be incremental. he may say something along the lines of one state or eight states have to flip. i don't think he'll flip all 41. >> we always appreciate your valuable insight. we hope you'll stick around for the next few months and continue to provide that as we wade through what is undoubtedly going to be a fairly complex case, as well. good saturday to you, sir. thank you for your time. >>
so with a doma case, it's like justice kennedy's most favorite things. because justice kennedy loves state power. >> loves state's rights. ? and he loves gay rights because of the 1996 case and the 2003 case, both of which he authored the opinion that upheld the rightings of lgbtv individuals. the doe ma case is like the perfect convergence of those two strands so, that's why i'm so confident about the doma case because it's a state's rights case in the sense that the federal government...
121
121
Dec 4, 2012
12/12
by
MSNBCW
tv
eye 121
favorite 0
quote 0
the 21 million americans hoping for health care and "the new york times" frank bruney weighs in on doma and cage for marriage equality when "now" starts in just three minutes. n't my daughs black bean soup spectacular? [ man thinking ] oh, this gas. those antacids aren't working. oh no, not that, not here! [ male announcer ] antacids don't relieve gas. gas-x is designed to relieve gas. gas-x. the gas xperts. gas-x is designed to relieve gas. when you lost the thing you can't believe you lost.. when what you just bought, just broke. or when you have a little trouble a long way from home... as an american express cardmember you can expect some help. but what you might not expect, is you can get all this with a prepaid card. spends like cash. feels like membership. ♪ but the fire is so delightful ♪ nothing melts away the cold like a hot, delicious bowl of chicken noodle soup from campbell's. ♪ let it snow, let it snow when you take a closer look... ...at the best schools in the world... ...you see they all have something very interesting in common. they have teachers... ...with a dee
the 21 million americans hoping for health care and "the new york times" frank bruney weighs in on doma and cage for marriage equality when "now" starts in just three minutes. n't my daughs black bean soup spectacular? [ man thinking ] oh, this gas. those antacids aren't working. oh no, not that, not here! [ male announcer ] antacids don't relieve gas. gas-x is designed to relieve gas. gas-x. the gas xperts. gas-x is designed to relieve gas. when you lost the thing you can't...